4.6 Article

Longitudinal follow-up of bronchial inflammation, respiratory symptoms, and pulmonary function in adolescents after repair of esophageal. atresia with tracheoesophageal fistula

期刊

JOURNAL OF PEDIATRICS
卷 153, 期 3, 页码 396-401

出版社

MOSBY-ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.jpeds.2008.03.034

关键词

-

资金

  1. Finska Lakaresallskapet
  2. Nummela Sanatorium Foundation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective To characterize symptoms, pulmonary function tests (PFT) and bronchial responsiveness (BR) in adolescents after repaired esophageal atresia with tracheoesophageal fistula and correlate these with endobronchial biopsy findings. Study design After a primary operation, 31 patients underwent endoseopies and bronchoscopies at the age of < 3, 3 to 7, and > 7 years. A questionnaire on respiratory and esophageal symptoms was sent to patients at a mean age of 13.7 years (range. 9.7-19.4). The questionnaire was completed by 27 of 31 patients (87%), and 25 of the 31 patients (81%) underwent clinical examination and pulmonary, functioning tests. Endobronchial biopsies were analyzed for reticular basement membrane (RBM) thickness and inflammatory cells. Results The prevalence of current respiratory and esophageal symptoms was 41% and 44%, respectively. Doctor-diagnosed asthma was present in 22% of patients. A restrictive and obstructive spirometric defect was observed in 32% and 30% of patients, respectively. Increased bronchial responsiveness, detected in 24% of patients, was weakly associated with current respiratory symptoms and low forced vital capacity. Mean exhaled nitric oxide was within predicted range. RBM thickness increased slightly with age, whereas inflammatory cell counts varied from normal to moderate, with intraindividual variation. Conclusion inflammation of the airways in adolescents with a history of tracheoesophageal fistula, even in the presence of atopy, does not lead, in most cases, to the type of chronic inflammation and RBM changes seen in asthma.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据